Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology
2012, 28(1), 159-181
Using a wiki-based collaborative process writing
pedagogy to facilitate collaborative writing among
Chinese primary school students
Xuanxi Li, Samuel Kai Wah Chu, Wing Wah Ki and Matsuko Woo
The University of Hong Kong
This case study explored collaborative writing in Chinese among 59 primary four
Chinese students using a Wiki-based Collaborative Process Writing Pedagogy (WCPWP) in
Shenzhen, China. It aimed mainly to design and orchestrate a WCPWP in order to
facilitate students’ Chinese writing. It investigated students’ collaborative writing
process and their performance on a wiki, and explored the perceptions and attitudes of
the teacher and her students towards WCPWP. A wiki-based writing environment
named Joyous Writing Club (JWC) was designed and developed using MediaWiki
software. Data was collected from questionnaires, online wiki documents, interviews,
and observations. The results illustrated students' collaborative writing process and
their products on the wiki. Besides, the results showed that students perceived
WCPWP was beneficial in boosting writing motivation, increasing group interactions,
and extending the audience for their writing. This study may help primary educators
gain a deeper understanding of the relationships between technology, pedagogy and
education. It may also provide practical recommendations for primary school Chinese
language teachers in the integration of Web 2.0 tools (wikis, Google Docs) as well as the
use of effective pedagogical strategies in the teaching of Chinese writing.
Introduction
Chinese writing has been described as the most difficult aspect in Chinese language
learning for Chinese primary school students (Ma, 2009; Sun, 2008). Students used to
complain that Chinese writing is difficult and that they dislike writing (Ma, 2009; Sun,
2008). Huang (2008) indicated that some primary students’ writing lacks involvement
and is flat and lifeless. Besides, students’ writing tends to be mechanical with little
sense of the writer’s thoughts and feelings (Cui, 2007; Xia, 2009).
In most Chinese primary schools, the method of teaching writing is still traditional,
teacher-centred (Sun, 2008) and product-oriented (Gu, 2004). Teachers usually do not
emphasise students’ writing processes, but want students to create acceptable products
(Gu, 2004). Typically, teachers provide guidance and model essays guided by the
textbook and other teaching materials. Students practise writing individually, and then
teachers assess and comment on students’ writing (Sun, 2008). This approach has been
criticised as one of the reasons why some students have low writing ability (Liu, 2009;
Xiong, 1995).
In the context of deepening reforms in the Chinese language examination system, the
value of writing has been attracting more and more attention (Zhu, 2010). During the
160
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
past decade, research on innovative approaches to teaching Chinese writing has
flourished (Huang, 2008; Wang, 2004; Wang, 2008; Wu, 2009; Xiong, 1995). Since 2003,
the New Standard of Chinese Curriculum has emphasised group interaction in
Chinese language learning (New Criteria of Chinese Curriculum, 2003). Recently,
researchers and educators have begun to focus on the benefits of collaborative learning
in the Chinese writing context (Wu, 2009; Xia, 2009). Reeves (2002) indicated that
collaborative learning in writing implies a balancing of authority between students
and teachers, since students can participate in their own learning through peer editing
and group writing. Collaborative writing provides a way to transcend writers’
individual self-centred interest, it also nurtures writers’ self-esteem, because their
opinions are considered and respected.
Furthermore, Lam (2007) integrated the process writing approach with collaborative
learning, which seems effective in motivating students to voice out their thoughts and
interact with one another in the process of English writing, and also appears to be able
to help students improve their writing skills through being engaged in the
developmental process of writing. According to Tobin (2001), the process pedagogy of
writing focuses on writing as a process rather than as a product. The process writing
approach emphasises the importance of the different stages in composing, by offering
students procedures that help them in choosing topics, gathering information,
organising their thoughts, composing, and revising (Gage, 1986).
In the area of collaborative learning in Chinese writing in China, however, there has
been much less research on how collaborative process writing activities are conducted
in classrooms and their effects on students' Chinese writing process and performance.
Moreover, little is known about students’ and teachers’ attitudes and perceptions
towards collaborative writing (Xie, 2006). This study is intended to address these gaps.
Literature review
Some scholars have pointed out that unless collaborative activities are carefully
orchestrated by the teacher, students may not take group work seriously, socialising
instead of working, allocating most of the work to one member, completing the activity
superficially, and generally not engaging fully in a collaborative process (Clark, 2003;
Spigelman, 1998). The use of an educational technology such as wikis may help
address these limitations and provide a useful platform for facilitating collaborative
learning. This is due to an important feature of wikis, as Lamb and Johnson (2007)
emphasised, the history function. This can record automatically the history of
revisions, and help students and teachers trace and reflect on the progress of the
collaborative learning and the contributions by each participant.
According to Ciesielka (2008), a wiki is an innovative means of creating, editing, and
disseminating information in an online environment, which can be authored
collectively. Some distinctive features of wikis have been identified as being
particularly powerful in supporting collaborative learning, compared to other Web 2.0
technologies. Lamb (2004) pointed out two important features of a wiki. One is its open
editing function, which allows users to add anything to a wiki at anytime. It is
important to emphasise here that participants can both add and delete each other’s
content in the wiki page (Pifarré & Staarman, 2011). The second is its discussion forum
function, which helps writers share their ideas for enhancing the page and provide
explanations of their additions and changes.
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
161
Bower (2008) systematically reviewed and summarised the affordances of wikis (media
affordances, spatial affordances, temporal affordances, navigational affordances,
emphasis affordances, synthesis affordances, and access control affordances) which can
be utilised appropriately for collaborative learning tasks. Woo, Chu, Ho and Li (2011)
further demonstrated that the wiki affordances matched the requirements of
collaborative writing tasks. Taken together, these wiki affordances and functions (e.g.
history function, discussion forum function) make it helpful in facilitating
collaborative writing activities.
The rapid development of wikis and their technology affordances has resulted in their
widespread use as platforms to support collaborative writing (Mak & Coniam, 2008;
Wong, Chen, Chai, Chin & Gao, 2011; Woo, Chu, Ho & Li, 2009, 2011). In recent years,
real time collaborative editing (RTCE) wiki systems such as P B w o r k s . c o m ,
Wikispaces.com, Wetpaint.com and Wikia.com have been widely used by educators and
researchers to support English writing (PBworks, 2010; Wetpaint, 2010; Wikia, 2010;
Wikispaces, 2010). There have been wiki projects such as the National Writing Project
(NWP), which includes 200 university-affiliated sites across the United States built to
improve the teaching and learning of writing in English.
Few researchers have investigated collaborative learning in Chinese writing, and even
fewer have examined the potential of a wiki environment for supporting collaborative
Chinese writing in China (Xie, 2006). To address these gaps, this study therefore used a
wiki to support collaborative process writing activities among upper primary school
Chinese students. To this end, this study designed and orchestrated a Wiki-based
Collaborative Process Writing Pedagogy (WCPWP) in order to improve students’ writing
ability effectively.
Conceptual model of wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy
In order to carry out the collaborative writing activity, a Wiki-based Collaborative Process
Writing Pedagogy (WCPWP) was designed for this study. The theoretical model of
WCPWP is based on social constructivist theory and the social view of writing process
theory. This study integrates features of social constructivist theory (Vygotsky, 1978)
and the social view of writing process theory (Faigley, 1986; Tompkins, 2008), and puts
forward a clear integrated conceptual model of the pedagogy. The model is illustrated
in Figure 1.
This model was negotiated between the researcher and the Chinese language teacher
of the class, as the basis for the design of the wiki platform, the teaching and learning
plan, and class organisation. The Chinese language teacher allocated students to
different groups, with each group comprising four students with mixed writing
abilities: two students with higher Chinese writing ability, and two students with
lower writing ability. The levels of students’ writing abilities were classified by the
Chinese language teacher, based on the records of students’ composition scores.
This model elucidates that the use of a wiki-based writing environment was supported
by social constructivist theory, and the wiki-based writing activities would occur in a
collaborative context (see top part of Figure 1). According to Witts (2011), a wiki allows
students to view each other’s ideas, change other people’s comments, and build upon
their knowledge by interacting with the other students. The use of a wiki that requires
social interaction leads itself towards the social constructivist theory which states that
knowledge is the result of social interaction. In this study, students in each group
162
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
worked together to write one composition on a single wiki page. Students in different
groups could view and comment on each other’ writing. The teacher could be also
involved in this process to provide each group with guidance and help facilitate their
writing (see top part of Figure 1). The collaborative process within groups has been
shown to support and promote multiple perspectives through dialogue and discourse.
Additionally, electronic communications between and among groups have been found
to support an effective constructivist instructional strategy that fosters social
negotiation (Almala, 2006).
Wiki-based writing environment
Composition 1
Group A
wiki page
Teacher
Group B
wiki page
Facilitate
communication
Group C
wiki page
Social
constructivist
theory
Interaction
Collaborative writing process
Group
prewriting
Group
drafting
Group
revising
Group
editing
Control and cycle
Monitor
Support
Social view of writing process theory
Figure 1: Conceptual model of wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
163
The design of the collaborative writing task was supported by both the social view of
writing process theory and the social constructivist theory (see bottom part of Figure
1). Social constructivist theory emphasises the critical importance of culture and the
social context of cognitive development. It proposes that individuals perceive the
world and shape discourse according to the shared beliefs and perceptions of the
community or communities to which they belong (Vygotsky, 1978). According to
Hewett (2009), social constructivist approaches to composition are often associated
with collaborative learning in writing classes, it suggests that knowledge is constructed
among social groups and that students need to be acculturated into the academic
community. It also argues that knowledge is not certain and that the group or social
voice is privileged over the individual's voice.
The social theory of writing assumes that all writing is a conversation between
members of a discourse community. Reading and responding to texts within a
discourse is central to this view. The social perspective upon writing processes is very
prominent in research on the collaborative pedagogy of writing (Faigley, 1986).
According to Tompkins (2008), the writing process describes what students think and
do as they write, supporting the collaborative writing activity. It consists of nonlinear
and recurrent cyclic series of five stages: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and
publishing. The labeling of the stages is simply an aid to identifying writing activities
(Tompkins, 2008). Based on Tompkins’s (2008) definition and description of the writing
process, in this study, the collaborative writing task for each group was divided into
nonlinear and recurrent cyclic series of four stages: group prewriting, group drafting,
revising and editing. The progressing of the four stages was monitored by the group
members (see bottom part of Figure 1). Students can be better prepared for
independent writing once they have learned to go through these writing stages and
have developed their own writing strategies (Tompkins, 2008).
Research questions
This study involved the use of a WCPWP to improve Chinese students’ writing ability.
More specifically, the study aimed to address the following research questions:
Q1. How do students learn with WCPWP? What are the difficulties they encounter?
Q2. What is the level of performance of the students’ writing with WCPWP?
Q3. What are the attitudes and perceptions of teacher and students towards WCPWP?
Methodology
Participants
The participants were 59 primary four students from a primary school in the city of
Shenzhen, China. They participated in this study from 27 April to 30 June 2010. The
school was rated medium to high in terms of the quality of campus facilities. Teaching
and learning activities were conducted in the students’ classroom and in one of their
computer labs. The computer lab has 56 Shenzhou-brand computers and is equipped
with asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) Internet access. The 56 computers
share the ADSL data rates, which can be as high as 4 Mb/s downstream and up to 512
kb/s upstream. The students’ classroom is equipped with a multimedia presentation
facility from the teacher’s computer. The whole class of 59 students, with an average
age of ten years, and their Chinese language teacher participated in this study. The
164
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
teacher has taught Chinese language for around ten years since graduating with her
Bachelor’s degree. She has basic computer skills but was not familiar with a wiki. All
students in the class returned signed informed consent forms from themselves and
their parents. The teacher and school principal also returned signed informed consent
forms. The study was reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the University of Hong Kong,
Learning design
To support students' collaborative writing, a constructivist learning environment
named Joyous Writing Club (JWC) was designed by the first author using MediaWiki
software based on Alessi and Trollip's (2001, p.410) model for software design and
development. The project of JWC (http://www.joyouswriting.com/) followed the
process of planning, design and development with due attention to the requirements
concerning standards, ongoing evaluation and efficient project management, and each
of the phases of planning, design, and development comprised a variety of issues and
actions.
Registered users could use their user names and passwords to enter JWC. In this study,
only student participants and the teacher who were authorised by the web manager
(the first author) had editing rights and could edit information on the wiki.
Figure 2 shows the layout of the website. On the left of the writing community page
are the Navigation Bar and the Tool Bar, where users can switch between wiki pages by
clicking links. The writing community page was divided into two main parts: Teacher's
Bulletin Corner and Students' Activity Corner.
On the Teacher’s Bulletin Corner, there were links for Writing Guidance, Rating Criteria,
and Reward Rules. The writing guidance was developed based on Tompkins’s (2008)
theory of collaborative writing process (Table 1). For the Rating Criteria (Mo, 2010), the
researcher and the Chinese language teacher rated group compositions based on the
elementary school high-grade narrative scoring criteria (Appendix C). Since the
Chinese language teacher likes to offer a range of rewards to improve students’
performance in their normal lessons, following the Chinese teacher’s suggestion,
extrinsic rewards were used in this study in order to help students to maintain their
engagement. Rules included rewarding three groups and one student with small gifts
(13 students). The best three groups gained small gifts based on their group scores. The
personal gift was for the student in the three best groups who actively participated in
writing and revised and wrote the most, based on the historical record on the wiki. As
Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000) noted, when learning activities are complex and lengthy,
a combination of intrinsically appealing elements and extrinsic rewards may be
necessary to help students to sustain their engagement.
On the Students' Corner, there was a list of composition tasks (stages of work) aranged
as different forums. Students were distributed into 14 groups. In order to encourage
students to write, wiki pages for the students' parents were also prepared. For instance,
for the first composition, Writing Topics and Requirements, Group wikipage (e.g.
Group D) and Parents' Group wikipage (e.g. Parents' Group D) were linked in a forum.
Students in each group need to first read the Writing Topic and Requirements, and
then write a composition collaboratively on their wiki page. For example, Group B
students wrote their compositions on the wiki page of Group B (Figure 3).
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
165
Figure 2: Writing community of Joyous Writing Club
The Chinese teacher and the researcher co-developed the composition topics based on
the Primary Four Chinese language syllabuses. The teacher designed the instruction to
balance curriculum demands, time constraints, and her personal teaching style. The
instruction for one composition was designed as two teaching episodes spanning from
one lesson to the other immediately following lesson. In the first lesson, the teacher
introduced the writing topic and requirements to students in the classroom, using a
multimedia presentation. After discussing the requirements of the composition, the
166
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
teacher asked students to talk about the materials they had collected for the writing,
including pictures and related articles, and the materials would be shared among
classmates. Afterwards, the teacher guided students to think about how to write their
own compositions, and to do some brainstorming with their group mates.
Figure 3: Wiki page by Group B
The second lesson was conducted in a computer lab, with students in the same group
sitting adjacent to each other. The teacher guided students in familiarising themselves
with the “Joyous Writing Club” system. She selected responsible students to be group
leaders to facilitate face to face group discussions and the collaborative writing
process. Students were then asked to write compositions collaboratively on JWC,
following the four writing stages (Table 1), which could be done in a cyclic, nonlinear
and flexible manner.
Unlike a conventional composition with pencil and paper that requires students to
submit their compositions within one lesson time, students were able to modify their
compositions on the wiki page repeatedly and finish every composition on JWC within
one week.
Research design and instruments
This study collected both quantitative and qualitative data from questionnaires, online
wiki documents, observations, and interviews. The study adopted triangulation of
data from two or more sources (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). Related data from different
data collection methods were combined in the study of the same phenomenon in order
to take advantage of the strengths of each method while overcoming their flaws
(Denzin, 1989).
A questionnaire for the teacher was modified based on the study of Woo et al. (2009).
Open ended questions probed the teacher’s perceptions and attitudes toward WCPWP
(Appendix A - translation by the author). All the questions in the questionnaire were
checked by two experts to ensure the content validity and reliability of the
questionnaire.
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
167
Table 1: Collaborative writing stages
(based on Tompkins' (2008) description of group writing)
Stage
1
2
3
4
Name
Description
Group During the prewriting stage, students in each group considered and
prewriting discussed the context, purpose, audience, and genre for their writing. They
considered also whether they knew enough about their topic and what their
writing topic was. Students could gather ideas and information by reading
books, searching the Internet, and discussing with their group members. The
group leader made a final decision on their writing, and posted their final
ideas on the wiki page.
Group In this stage, students in each group wrote the first draft together on their
drafting wiki page. The students developed their own content, based on their previous
ideas. All the students in the group could organise the structure and express
their ideas and feelings quickly, collaboratively, and with little concern about
character writing, correctness and punctuation. In this stage, their drafts
emphasised the ideas and content of their writing.
Group Revising is a complex process comprising three activities: re-reading the
revising rough draft, sharing the rough draft, and revising based on peers’ comments
and feedback. Students might choose to change some words, or reorganise a
part completely on the wiki.
Group Editing is a stage in which the piece of writing is put into its final form. When
editing editing, students could view the piece in terms of word choice and
correctness of content, sentence structure, spelling errors and punctuation
problems. Students were encouraged to edit their group work again on the
wiki a few days after they finished their composition. The period of waiting
might provide students with a fresh perspective and the enthusiasm
necessary to finish the writing process. At the end, the leader needed to
confirm the completion of their writing.
A course feedback questionnaire that was modified from previous studies (Hazari,
North & Moreland, 2009; Liang, 1995) was used to explore students’ perceptions of the
WCPWP. The questionnaire (Table 4) comprised 21 questions using a five-point Likerttype scale, and the questions were intended to measure five subscales: motivation (6
items), interaction (6 items), teacher’s role (3 items), audience (2 items) and technology
factors (4 items). Cronbach’s alpha reliability value for the overall scale was 0.79. For
the different subscales, motivation had an alpha of 0.87; group interaction alpha was
0.63; teacher’s role had an alpha of 0.37; audience alpha was 0.82; and technology alpha
was 0.37. The standard for instrument reliability for Cronbach’s alpha by Robinson,
Shaver, and Wrightsman (1991) was used to evaluate the quality of the scales of the
attitude measures. These standards were: 0.80 or better – exemplary reliability; 0.700.79 – extensive reliability; 0.60-0.69 – moderate reliability; and <0.60 – minimal
reliability. Based on the above guidelines, the overall scale exhibited extensive
reliability, and three subscales including ‘motivation’, ‘group interaction’, and
‘audience’ exhibited moderate reliability. Due to the low reliabilities of the teacher’s
role and technology scales, we deleted them from the analysis. Hence, only these three
subscales were analysed in this study. Of the 59 students, 56 submitted questionnaires.
Cases with missing data were excluded, such that the final sample size for data
analysis was 51 (86% response).
The first author was a participant observer in the writing course to examine how
primary students wrote compositions collaboratively on the JWC system, and to
168
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
observe the group interactions during the collaborative writing process. She also
helped students with technological problems during their writing process, and
conducted the observations without a schedule, but took down descriptive field notes.
The descriptive and narrative records were organised into categories to facilitate
interpretations of the observed writing processes.
Semi-structured interviews with 14 students were conducted to help in understanding
students’ experiences and examining specific issues. Three randomly selected student
groups and two randomly selected individual students were interviewed. Individual
students were interviewed because one downside to focus group discussions is that
some participants may be overly outspoken and overshadow quieter participants, and
affect weak minded participants (Gay & Airasian, 2003). The interview questions for
focus groups and individual students were the same (Appendix B - translation by the
author). Interviews were coded by the first author into themes, and each theme was
given a label, the percentage of students who contributed to the theme was calculated,
and representative statements for each were selected. Finally, the coded data were
cross-checked by a research assistant to ensure the validity and reliability of data
interpretation.
Quantitative data from the wiki documents for the two group composition
assignments were collected. The researcher and the Chinese language teacher rated
group compositions together, based on the elementary school high-grade narrative
scoring criteria (Mo, 2010). The high-grade narrative scoring criteria is attached in
Appendix C. The marks of the compositions were cross-checked by both the researcher
and the Chinese language teacher, which resulted in 95% inter-rater agreement to
ensure the inter-rater reliability of the composition scores.
Results
How do students learn with the Wiki-based Collaborative Process Writing
Pedagogy? What are the difficulties they encounter?
This study lasted for around two months, and each group of students produced three
compositions, one of which was used to train students to become familiar with the use
of the wiki website and writing instructions, while the other two compositions (Table
2) were marked as assignments by the researcher and the Chinese language teacher.
These two assignments were analysed in this study.
To help understand how students learned to write compositions collaboratively on the
JWC system, what the classroom culture was like, and how students interacted with
one another, the researcher attended classes as a participant observer.
During the writing process, students in each group wrote their compositions following
the four stages (group prewriting, group drafting, revising and editing). According to
the instructional design, each composition occupied two consecutive lessons and a
certain amount of after-school time. The first lesson was conducted in the classroom,
where the Chinese language teacher provided simple guidance for writing, and
students of each group discussed their writing (group prewriting) content face to face.
The second lesson was conducted in the computer lab, where students mainly did
group drafting, revising and editing on the computers. The students continued to
revise and edit their writing after school, until the deadline.
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
169
Table 2: Topics of composition assignments
Number of
Topics of compositions
compositions
Assignment 1 Please write down your feelings and experience on idyllic landscape. You can
write down what you want to write, which can be your own experience, what
you heard of, what you saw, or may be your imagination, or a feeling. You
should write clearly and pay attention to the accumulation of beautiful words
and sentences. Your article should not be less than 400 words. Please make sure
that each group completes the first draft in class. After class, please continue
modifying and editing your first draft, and finishing your second draft. The
deadline is 31 May.
Assignment 2 Dear students, you are asked to write about "A person we respect." Around us,
there are many admirable people. The person may be your fellow student who
practises calligraphy diligently; or a cleaner working quietly in cold and hot
weather... choose one of them, through specific examples, praise their spirit of
persistence. If you think there are other characteristics that you admire, you can
also talk with us. Please state your feelings of admiration clearly. Your article
should not be less than 400 words. Please make sure that each group completes
the first draft in class. After class, please continue modifying and editing your
first draft, and finishing your second draft. Deadline for submission is at 12:00
o'clock on 14 June.
During the writing process, both students and the teacher struggled with the
collaborative aspects of the assignment. For the first composition assignment, two
categories were derived from analysis of the data. The first one was peer negotiation.
In the pre-writing stage, students in each group spent at least 5 minutes discussing
their writing content and the roles and responsibilities of each member in the group.
Usually, peer negotiation of divergent viewpoints slowed their process. The second
category was editing clashes. In the following stages, students of the same group were
required to write on their wiki page in parallel. However, the researcher observed
popup message windows which showed “editing clash” when students wrote
synchronously on the same wiki page. The edit clashes slowed the writing process, and
only the writing of the student who wrote first was recorded on the wiki. In order to
deal with the problem of editing clashes, for the second composition assignment,
students in each group were asked to write their compositions in sequence on their
wiki page.
Another two categories were derived from analysis of the data of the second
composition. The first one was peer negotiation as in the first composition. The second
one was division of labor and collaboration. Students of the same group chose to
assign different paragraphs to different members, and the group leader wrote first on
the wiki page for around 10 minutes. At the same time, other group members wrote on
Microsoft Word and then transferred their writing to the wiki page when their turn
came and continued to write for another 10 minutes until it was the time to pass the
turn to another group member to use the wiki. In short, students of the same group
wrote asynchronously and then modified and finished their composition
collaboratively.
The researcher also identified three kinds of technical issues. The first kind concerned
the mastery of MediaWiki’s technical features. For example, there were students who
did not know the function of historical record, and there were students who forgot
170
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
their username or password, which seemed to exacerbate their frustration in using the
wiki. The second kind of issue was about the knowledge of the formatting rules of
MediaWiki. For instance, it was hard for primary students to upload a picture since
students needed to have some knowledge of hypertext markup language (HTML) in
terms of the formatting rules. However, it is too difficult for primary students to
master HTML. Furthermore, some students encountered difficulties in recovering from
errors and formatting their articles. The third kind of technical issue concerned
incompatibilities between the Chinese writing format and the formatting rules of
MediaWiki. According to the requirements of the Chinese writing format, students
needed to leave two blank spaces at the beginning of every paragraph. However, when
students left two blank spaces at the beginning of a paragraph on the wiki, the text in
this paragraph was put into a box produced by MediaWiki software, in accordance with
its formatting rules.
What is the level of performance of the students’ writing with WCPWP?
Over the study, students’ writing activities on wikis varied widely from group to
group. Table 3 gives information about the two assignments per group collected from
the wiki documents, including the number of participants, the number of words, the
number of group members’ revisions as shown in the historical record, and the
composition scores. Students collaborated in fourteen groups of four, named Group A
to Group N.
Table 3: Summary of students’ editing activities on JWC
Composition One
Composition Two
No.
No.
No.
Group
No.
No.
No.
Group
participants
words revisions score participants
words
revisions score
A
3
289
6
19
3
345*
10*
20*
B
2
531
7
21
3
878*
18*
21
C
4
773
8
18
3
323
8
19*
D
2
516
5
26
2
590*
5
27*
E
2
203
6
16
3
114
5
10
F
0
30
1
0
1
161*
3*
8*
G
1
143
1
14
4
501*
8*
24*
H
2
0
0
0
3
122*
9*
11*
I
1
29
1
3
2
144*
5*
10*
J
2
830
1
26
1
467
5*
25
K
3
845
8
19
4
309
12*
19
L
2
38
1
3
2
229*
8*
16*
M
3
413
10
20
4
443*
7
24*
N
4
548
3
21
4
387*
10*
25*
Total
31
/n
58
206
39*
/n
113*
259*
* Denotes that the score in Composition Two is higher than that in Composition One.
Group
As shown in Table 3, more students participated in the second composition. The total
number of students in the second composition was 39, which was 8 more than in the
first writing (31). In the second composition, most groups (71.4%) wrote more words,
except Groups C, E, J and K. Ten groups made more revisions in Composition Two
than in Composition One, and two groups (C, D) made the same number of changes;
only Group E and Group M made fewer modifications in Composition Two than in
Composition One. Overall, the total number of modifications for Composition Two
was 113 compared to the total number of 58 for Composition One. Among the 14
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
171
groups, 10 groups (71.4%) achieved higher scores in Composition Two. The mean score
for Composition Two was 3.79 marks higher (26% increase) than that of Composition
One, and a pair-sampled t-test indicated that the difference was significant at p < 0.05
(see Table 4).
Table 4: Paired samples test of students’ compositions scores on JWC
Paired differences
Sig.
95% confidence
Std.
Std. error
t
df
(2-tailed)
Mean
interval of the difference
dev.
mean
Lower
Upper
Pair1: s1 - s2
-3.79
5.37
1.43
-6.88
-0.69
-2.64 13
0.02*
Notes: s1 = score for Composition One; s2 = score for Composition Two; *p < 0.05. Score for
Composition Two was deducted from the score for Composition One.
The study opened wiki pages for parent groups, to encourage parents to put forward
their comments and suggestions for their children. However, not a single parent wrote
a word on the wiki during the duration of the study.
What are the attitudes and perceptions of teacher and students towards
WCPWP?
The course feedback scale tested students’ attitudes and perceptions toward WCPWP.
Table 5 shows that the mean score of each item in the Motivation, Interaction, and
Audience subscales was higher than 3 (Neutral = 3), which reveals that students
perceived collaborative writing using a wiki as beneficial in boosting their writing
motivation, increasing group interactions, and extending the audience for their
writings.
Table 6 shows the findings from interviews with students, which supplemented the
course feedback questionnaire. Students' statements were initially examined to group
similar comments into themes. The fit between each statement and the theme was
evaluated. Finally, each theme was given a label, the percentage of students who
contributed comments to the theme was calculated, and representative statements
were selected (translations by the author).
According to Table 6, four positive themes emerged: learning benefits (93% students),
group interaction (86% students), technology advantages (86% students), and audience
(71% students). For instance, S1 and S2 were very happy with Wiki-based
Collaborative Process Writing Pedagogy (WCPWP).
S1: I like writing on JWC, since I can communicate with other students more, and learn
from their writing method [...] I have learned that we need a central sentence in every
paragraph, and a link sentence between every two paragraphs, or two different points
[...] I discussed with others better, and adopted the better opinion of others. I can get
comments from others in order to improve my writing step by step [...] traditionally,
teacher, parents, and a small amount of students were the audience of my
composition. By using the wiki, there is a larger audience which increased my
enthusiasm for writing...
S2: After writing on JWC, I feel writing is so enjoyable[...] When I write now, I can
think more and deeper than in the past when I was taught by my teacher using the
traditional writing approach. Now with JWC, I can discuss my ideas with my group
members. I have learned a lot of new ideas from them…
172
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
Table 5: Students’ attitudes and perceptions toward the
Wiki-based Collaborative Process Writing Pedagogy (N=51)
Subscale
Items
Cronbach’s
alpha
0.64
0.87**
Mean SD
1. Motivation 1. I like writing collaboratively on “Joyous Writing
4.61
Club”.
2. Compared with writing with pen and paper, I prefer
4.61 0.80
writing on “Joyous Writing Club” more.
3. “Joyous Writing Club” improved my writing interest
4.49 0.86
4. I participated in writing more because of “Joyous
3.86 1.10
Writing Club”.
5. I continued to write more because of using “Joyous
4.00 1.08
Writing Club”.
6. I hope to continue using “Joyous Writing Club” next
4.73 0.70
semester.
2. Group
7. I learned a lot from my group members, which
4.61 0.67
0.63**
interaction
enriched my writing content.
8. On the whole, the conflict among group members
3.84 1.30
brought more benefits than disadvantages.
9. I think the contribution of every member is
4.76 0.55
important. In order to write the best composition,
everyone needs to try his/her best.
10. I think that whether or not students collaborate
4.33 1.07
successfully in a group affects collaborative writing
significantly.
11. I think interaction among students can improve my
4.61 0.90
writing ability more than only interaction with the
teacher.
12. Compared with the traditional writing, interaction
4.65 0.66
on “Joyous Writing Club” improved my writing ability.
4. Audience
16. Since more people can know our compositions, I
4.47 0.86
.82**
have become more active in writing.
17. I think there is a larger audience when we write on
4.31 0.97
“Joyous Writing Club”, which is one advantage of this
writing environment.
** The standards for Cronbach alpha reliability value for evaluating attitude measures were:
0.80 or better – exemplary reliability; 0.70-0.79 – extensive reliability; 0.60-0.69 – moderate
reliability; and < 0.60 – minimal reliability (Robinson et al., 1991, p. 13)
Students also put forward three negative themes: collaboration problem (100%), time
issue (57% students), and technology disadvantages (71% students) (see Table 6).
S3: Sometimes, we had different opinions; some members argued and insisted on their
opinions [...] We also encountered technology problems in the classroom, for example,
we failed to save the writing on the wiki, and it is very slow for us to open or save the
wiki page sometimes, and usually we cannot finish our writing in class [...] Some bad
students destroyed our writing on our page on purpose, and our article was lost
suddenly...
Students also expressed their perceptions of the teacher’s role (43% students), and
indicated that the writing topics (36%) (see Table 6) may affect the collaborative writing
result, since some writing topics are not suitable for using WCPWP.
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
173
S1: I think teacher's guidance is not important during the collaborative writing
process. The most important is students' collaborative writing process and their
writing attitudes.
S4: Some topics are easy for the group to write together, but some are hard. It depends
on the topic of the composition. For example, the composition, "a person I respect"
was hard for us to write collaboratively since we respect different persons; we need to
write about a person we all know and respect; it is hard.
Table 6: Interview findings (N=14 students)
Themes
Positive Learning
benefits
Group
interaction
Technology
advantages
Audience
Negative Collaboration
problems
Time issue
Technology
disadvantages
Other
Teacher’s role
Writing topics
n
13
12
%
Representative views
93% Improved their writing ability, writing interest, computer
skills, and collaborative ability.
86% Wiki facilitated collaborative learning within a group.
12
86% Students could write at anytime in and after class; it was
easier for peer edits, revision and comments.
10 71% A larger audiences motivated their writing; at the same
time, as the audience themselves, they learned from one
another’s compositions.
14 100% They usually had different opinions of the writing content.
Some members did not write, or wrote very few words.
8 57% One lesson time in computer lab was not enough, and it
was difficult for them to manage to write well after class
10 71% Some bad/naughty students in other groups went to their
writing place and changed their writing contents on
purpose.
6 43% Teacher’s guidance in writing was not important; they
needed the teacher to provide them with technology
support.
5 36% Some writing topics are not good for writing
collaboratively, such as the topic of “A person I respect”.
Analysis of the responses to the teacher’s questionnaire after the experimental teaching
indicates that the participating Chinese language teacher became more interested in
using the collaborative writing method with the wiki, compared to the traditional
individual writing method. She also expressed that, during the collaborative writing
class with the wiki, her role was more that of a facilitator than an instructor.
Teacher: Students were interested in writing collaboratively in groups [...] I hope they
can advance their writing ability, modification ability, and enhance their sense of
teamwork from this collaborative writing activity... [...] I acted as a facilitator rather
than an instructor...
Discussion
This study explored how a Wiki-based Collaborative Process Writing Pedagogy (WCPWP)
was designed and implemented to facilitate Chinese writing among a class of primary
four students in China. In doing so, this study designed a WCPWP based on social
constructivist theory and social view of writing process theory, and investigated
students’ collaborative writing processes using WCPWP, students’ online performance
using WCPWP, and teacher and students’ attitudes and perceptions towards WCPWP.
The results provided a general picture of students’ collaborative writing processes
using WCPWP. The researcher observed that students wrote their compositions on a
174
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
wiki following the given cyclical and nonlinear writing process (group prewriting,
group drafting, revising and editing) which supported the social view of writing
process theory. During the writing process, students in each group communicated and
interacted with each other, which was in line with the theoretical propositions of social
constructivism (Cheng, 2009) that emphasise the collaborative nature of knowledge
construction in group learning in a socio-cultural context (Vygotsky, 1978). The teacher
indicated that factors such as writing topic and students’ computer skills might affect
the quality of collaborative writing with the wiki. During the students’ writing, she
became a facilitator rather than an instructor. Just as social constructivist theory
explains, in student-centred learning activity, the role of the teacher is that of a
facilitator, providing a framework (i.e. activities for students to complete) that
facilitates student learning (Hiltz, 1994).
By analysing the results of the three research questions, this study generalised several
specific themes regarding using WCPWP in Chinese writing among Chinese primary
school students. The first theme is learning benefits. Students perceived WCPWP to be
beneficial in boosting writing motivation, improving writing ability, computer skills,
and collaborative ability. Most groups performed better in their second compositions
(Table 3). It appears that a well-organised WCPWP could be used effectively and
meaningfully in Chinese writing classes in primary school.
The second theme is group interaction or collaboration. Most students perceived
WCPWP to be beneficial in increasing group interactions, which enriched their
knowledge and improved their writing ability. Few students expressed that peer
negotiation of inconsistent opinions and edit conflicts slowed down their writing
process. The observed disadvantages of group interaction were consistent with Forte's
(2009) findings from his study of a teacher-designed MediaWiki assignment in the
Biogeochemical Cycles Project with undergraduate students. However, most students
still expressed that conflicts among group members brought more benefits than
disadvantages (Table 5). For instance, they can think more and deeper when discussing
their ideas with their group members (S2), and also learned new ideas from their
group members (S1 & S2). In doing so, the opportunity for differing opinions in group
discussions and arguments is enhanced, and these differences may provoke conceptual
change (O'Donnell, 2006), subsequently, helping to co-construct students’ new
understanding and increase their knowledge (Pifarré & Staarman, 2011).
The third theme is technical advantages and disadvantages associated with using
WCPWP in Chinese writing. In terms of the technical advantages, students expressed
that they could write at anytime in and after class; and it was easier for peer edits,
revision and comments (Table 5). In the stages of group drafting, revising and editing,
the function of open editing of the wiki, which allows participants add and delete the
contents collaboratively (Pifarre & Staarman, 2011), played an important role. Other
studies have indicated wikis as valuable resources for revision and collaboration (Cress
& Kimmerle, 2008; Snodgrass, 2011). However, the researcher also observed three
categories of technical disadvantages: first, some students did not master MediaWiki’s
technical features; second, it was difficult for upper primary students to have sufficient
knowledge about MediaWiki's formatting rules; third, incompatibilities between
Chinese writing formats and the formatting rules of MediaWiki. These problems could
be alleviated or solved if some Chinese wiki projects with powerful functions and
friendlier interfaces like PBworks.com or Wikispaces could be designed and developed
for Chinese educational institutions. Currently, wiki systems like PBworks.com cannot
be used in China; hence, this study was necessarily limited to the use of MediaWiki.
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
175
Furthermore, student interviews showed another positive theme -- the audience for
their writing was extended; and one negative theme which is that writing time in class
was too limited for them to finish during class time. The findings are similar to Coley's
(2007) study, indicating that the wiki could be used to facilitate collaboration and
extend the audience in the writing class. In this study, students also expressed their
perceptions of the teacher’s role, which changed from that of an instructor to that of a
facilitator, and indicated that not all writing topics were suitable for writing
collaboratively.
Conclusion
To summarise, Wiki-based Collaborative Process Writing Pedagogy (WCPWP) focuses on a
student-centred collaborative writing process, and is underpinned by the social
constructivist paradigm and social view of writing process theory. After two months of
implementation, teacher and students’ attitudes and perceptions towards WCPWP
were found to be positive, and students showed progress in their final composition on
the wiki. The overall results suggest that a well-orchestrated WCPWP could be
implemented effectively and meaningfully to support students’ Chinese writing in
primary school.
This case study has two limitations. The first is the low reliability of the two subscales teacher’s role and wiki technology, which may be improved with a larger sample size.
The second comes from the computer equipment and the network speed in the
participating school. Perhaps, better facilities may address some of the problems
encountered by the students. Further studies are still needed to improve and refine
WCPWP, as well as exploring the effect of WCPWP on students’ writing ability.
This study has important implications. In terms of theoretical significance, it shows
that Chinese students can use wikis effectively in a collaborative Chinese writing
context. This extends previous literatures which have focused mostly on Englishspeaking participants (Mak & Coniam, 2008; Wong, Chen, Chai, Chin & Gao, 2011;
Woo, Chu, Ho & Li, 2009, 2011). This study also has practical implications. It may help
primary educators gain a deeper understanding of the relationships between
technology, pedagogy and education. It may also provide practical guidelines for
educators in the integration of Web 2.0 tools (wikis, Google Docs) as well as the use of
effective pedagogical strategies in the teaching of Chinese writing in China.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Dr Jan van Aalst, of the Faculty of Education, HKU, for his
valuable comments in the manuscript preparation.
References
Almala, A. H. (2006). Applying the principles of constructivism to a quality e-learning
environment. Distance Learning, 3(1), 33-41. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P31269826961.html
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Group.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis - matching learning tasks with learning technologies.
Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523980701847115
176
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
Cheng, G. (2009). Using game making pedagogy to facilitate student learning of interactive
multimedia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 204-220.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet25/cheng.html
Choy, S. O. & Ng, K. C. (2007). Implementing wiki software for supplementing online learning.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 209-226.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/choy.html
Ciesielka, D. (2008). Using a wiki to meet graduate nursing education competencies in
collaboration and community health. Journal of Nursing Education, 47(10), 473-476.
http://www.slackjournals.com/article.aspx?rid=34249
Clark, I. L. (2003). Concepts in composition theory and practice in the teaching of writing. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coley, T. F. (2007). Wikis in the teaching of writing: Purposes for implementation. Unpublished
M.A. Thesis. North Carolina State University.
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/2803
Cress, U. & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge
building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2),
105-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9035-z
Cui, L. (2007). On the Chinese language textbook compiling for elementary schools in China. In
Z. Hong, S. Liu & W. Ni (Eds.), A study of first language textbooks (Vol. 9, pp. 170-204). Nanjing:
Jiangsu Education Publishing House.
Denzin, N. K. (Ed.). (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College English, 48(6),
527-542. http://www.jstor.org/pss/376707
Forte, A. (2009). Learning in public: Information literacy and participatory media. Unpublished thesis
for Doctor of Philosophy. School of Interactive Computing, College of Computing, Georgia
Institute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/29767
Gage, N. (1986). Why write? In A. N. Petrovsky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.), The teaching of writing.
(Eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Gu, K. (2004). Investigating the process-oriented writing approach. Journal of Anhui University
(Philosophy and Social Sciences), 28(6).
Hazari, S., North, A. & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogical value of wiki technology.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187-198. [abstract only]
http://jise.org/Volume20/20-2/Pdf/V20N2P187-abs.pdf
Hewett, B. L. (2009). Generating new theory for online writing instruction. Kairos, 6(2). [viewed
10 Dec 2009, verified 24 Jan 2012] http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/6.2/features/hewett/
Hidi, S. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue
for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002151
Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
177
Huang, Z. (2008). Calling for ture emotions in primary school students' Chinese writing.
Education of Science, 11, 43. [citation correction in progress]
Lam, W.-S. (2007). An action research project to explore the effects of collaborative learning on students’
writing quality and their conceptions of writing. Unpublished Thesis for Master of Arts in
Applied Linguistics, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Lamb, A. & Johnson, L. (2007). An information skills workout: Wikis and collaborative writing.
Teacher Librarian, 34(5), 57-59. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-164424176.html
Lamb, B. (2004). Wide open spaces: Wikis, ready or not. EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 36-48.
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume39/
WideOpenSpacesWikisReadyorNot/157925
Liang, S.-T. (1995). Effects of online peer assessment upon the sixth-graders' learning of writing.
Unpublished Masters Thesis, National Central University, Taipei.
http://thesis.lib.ncu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=92127006
Liu, Z. (2009). Teaching and Learning of primary Chinese writing under the background of
Chinese new curriculum. New Curriculum Research, 2(140), 123.
Ma, Q. (2009). Discussing about the inquiring teaching method in primary school students'
Chinese writing. New Curriculum Research, 2(140), 49-50.
Mak, B. & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among
secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36, 437-455.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.004
Mo, D. (2010). Primary school Chinese essay scoring criteria. [viewed Mar 2010, verified 24 Jan
2012; in Chinese] http://blog.163.com/keke_0912/blog/static/6067032120081126102826181/
New Criteria of Chinese Curriculum (2003). The national curriculum criteria album - criteria of
Chinese course. [in Chinese] http://www.being.org.cn/ncs/chn/chn.htm
O'Donnell, A. M. (2006). Introduction: Learning with technology. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E.
Hmelo-Silver & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 1-13).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
PBworks (2010). http://pbworks.com/content/about
Pifarré, M. & Staarman, J. K. (2011). Wiki-supported collaborative learning in primary education:
How a dialogic space is created for thinking together. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 187-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9116-x
Reeves, J. (2002). Writing alone, writing together: A guide for writers and writing groups. Novato,
California: New World Library.
Rick, J. & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. International Journal
of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 89-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412006-6842-6
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R. & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Snodgrass, S. (2011). Wiki activities in blended learning for health professional students:
Enhancing critical thinking and clinical reasoning skills. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 27(4), 563-580. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/snodgrass.html
178
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
Sun, Q. (2008). My opinion towards Chinese writing in primary school. Journal of Educational
Institute of Jilin Province, 24(198), 152.
Timina, S. A. (2010). On the interference of Chinese in using English as a foreign language.
[verified 24 Jan 2012] http://de.dstu.edu.ru/CDOSite/ConfEng/articles%5Carticle23.htm
Tobin, L. (2001). Process pedagogy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper & K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to
composition pedagogies (pp. 1-18). New York Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tompkins, G. E. (2008). Literacy for the 21st Century: A balanced approach, 5th Edition. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, D. (2004). Between the ideal and realistic - On the state of two kinds writing. Chinese
Language Learning, 2004(2).
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A. & Liu, Y. (2004). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language
and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97(1), 67-88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.001
Wang, X. Q. (2008). Preliminary study on the method of training students' writing skills. Ke Jiao
Wen Hui, 7(Mid), 96.
Wetpaint (2010). http://www.wetpaint.com/page/About
Wikia (2010). http://www.wikia.com/Wikia
Wikispaces (2010). http://www.wikispaces.com/
Witts, J. (2011). The educational value of Web 2.0 technologies in a social constructivist and
situative learning theory. [viewed 30 Dec 2011, verified 24 jan 2012]
http://www.jonwitts.co.uk/elearning/web2/web_2_essay.pdf
Wong, L.-H., Chen, W., Chai, C.-S., Chin, C.-K., & Gao, P. (2011). A blended collaborative writing
approach for Chinese L2 primary school students. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 27(7), 1208-1226. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/wong-lh.html
Woo, M., Chu, S. K. W., Ho, A. & Li, X. (2009). Collaborative writing with a wiki in a primary five
English classroom. Paper presented at the The 6th International Conference on Knowledge
Management. http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789814299862/9789814299862_0016.html
Woo, M., Chu, S. K. W., Ho, A., & Li, X. (2011). Using a wiki to scaffold primary school students’
collaborative writing. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 43-54.
http://www.ifets.info/journals/14_1/5.pdf
Wu, Z. (2009). Thinking about teaching and innovation of Chinese writing in middle school in
the Internet age. View New Observations of Education, 3, 5-6.
Xie, T. (2006). Blog, wiki, podcasting and learning chinese language. Paper presented at the The
5th International Conference on New Technologies in Teaching and Learning Chinese. [in
Chinese] http://www.csulb.edu/~txie/papers/Blog%20Wiki%20Pod%20Can%20we%20
use%20them%20full%20text.pdf
Xiong, X. (1995). Teaching and learning of Chinese writing in the twenty-first century. Journal of
Jinzhu University, 3(19), 45-47.
Xia, B. (2009). Enlightment that constructivist learning theory gave to teaching and learning of
Chinese writing in middle school. Journal of Mudanjiang College of Education, 1, 133-134.
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
179
Xu, P. & Jen, T. (2005). "Penless" Chinese language learning: A computer-assisted approach.
Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association, 40(2), 25-42.
Zhu, G. X. (2010). Discussion about the teaching of writing under the new curriculum reform.
New Curriculum, 28 December, 177-178.
Appendix A: Questionnaire for teachers
Please finish the questionnaire within 20 minutes. We will keep all the information you provide
to us completely confidential. Thanks.
Name: _____________ Gender:__________ Age: ___________
1. What challenges and issues did you face when using a wiki to orchestrate the collaborative
writing activities in your class?
2. How did you deal with the challenges and issues encountered?
3. From your observation, what is/are students’ response(s) regarding group writing using a
wiki?
a. Compared to their traditional individual writing, do these students become more
interested in their writing when doing it using a wiki?
b. What kinds of difficulties did your students encounter in using a wiki for their writing?
c. How did the students manage to overcome them? And what kind of assistance did you
offer to them?
4. What observable improvement in writing ability, if any, did you see in the students’ work
compared to their previous writing without using a wiki?
5. How does wiki’s tracking system help you provide support during the editing process in
collaborative writing? What kind of support did you provide?
6. How would you define your role regarding the whole process of students’ collaborative
writing?
7. Did your students show improvement in other abilities other than their writing ability? For
example, reading ability, IT ability, knowledge management, collaboration ability, etc.?
8. From your perspective, what are your perceived benefits gained by the students through this
mode of learning using a wiki?
9. Will you continue to use the wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy in the
future? Why?
10. Any other comments?
Appendix B: Semi-structured interview questions to students
1. Compared with writing with paper and pencil, do you like writing in “joyous writing club”
more? Why?
2. Do you think you can learn a lot from your peers in the collaborative writing process? What
have you learned?
3. Do you think the different opinions of your group members will affect the writing result?
Why?
4. Do you think you still want to write Chinese collaboratively next semester?
5. Do you think the collaborative writing approach can help you improve your writing better,
compared with a traditional writing approach?
6. Do you think teacher’s guidance is very important in the collaborative writing process? What
other help do you need from the teacher?
7. Since you can receive evaluation and comments from your group members when you write
collaboratively with the wiki, do you think it is better than only receiving comments from
your Chinese teacher?
8. Since there is a larger audience who can view your article when you write composition on
the wiki, do you think this is an advantage of using wiki that can help you write composition
more efficiently?
180
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(1)
9. When you write a composition on the wiki, do you think the communication among your
classmates is very helpful for your writing?
10. Do you think the writing activities and the writing ability of each group member in your
group will affect the writing result significantly?
11. Do you think the instructional design will affect the writing result significantly? For instance,
how to group students? How will group members collaborate with each other?
12. What advantages does wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy have in your
experience?
13. What disadvantages does wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy have in your
experience?
Appendix C: Elementary school high-grade narrative scoring
criteria
Proportion of components: (full score is 30 points)
1. Topic - 5%, 1.5 points.
2. Ideas - 25%, 7.5 points.
3. Content - 30%, 9 points.
4. Organisation - 10%, 3 points.
5. Sentence fluency - 20%, 6 points.
6. Punctuation and spelling - 10%, 3 points; one incorrect character/punctuation is 0.5 points.
First Level Standard: (27-30 points)
1. Topic: The topic of the composition is appropriate.
2. Ideas: The writing ideas are healthy, clear and focused with a central theme completely.
3. Content: Details support the theme. The description is vivid and the content can capture the
readers’ interests. Besides, the content has intrinsic value.
4. Organisation: Information is presented in clear sequence, making connections and transitions
among sentences and paragraphs.
5. Sentence fluency: The writer develops smooth flow and rhythm in sentences. Text has a
natural, fluent sound; with a combination of simple, compound, and complex sentences
beginning in a variety of ways throughout the text; with good use of Chinese idioms,
rhetoric, and proverbs.
6. Punctuation and spelling: The writer uses correct punctuation, capitalisation and grammar.
The writer uses correct spelling. The composition has enough characters.
Second Level Standard: (24-26 points)
1. Topic: The topic of the composition is appropriate
2. Ideas: Addresses the prompt with a single incident/experience.
3. Content: Most effective details can show the reader about the event. Includes a slowed down
step-by-step elaboration.
4. Organisation: Have obvious beginning, middle, and end. Closing of at least two sentences
that express an observation, reaction or feeling.
5. Sentence fluency: Extensive variation in sentence structure, length, and beginnings that flow
easily. Have used some Chinese idioms, rhetoric, and proverbs.
6. Punctuation and spelling: Most punctuation, capitalisation and grammar are correct. All high
frequency characters spelled correctly, all incorrectly spelled characters are easily
decipherable.
Third Level Standard: (18-23 points)
1. Topic: The topic of the composition is appropriate.
2. Ideas: Focuses on a single incident or experience.
3. Content: Some sensory details and/or feelings tell the reader about the event.
4. Organisation: Organisation demonstrates sequencing of related ideas.
5. Sentence fluency: Good control over simple sentences and uses compound and complex
sentences.
6. Punctuation and spelling: High frequency characters, punctuation, capitalisation and
grammar are correctly used, one or more of incorrectly spelled characters not easily
decipherable.
Li, Chu, Ki and Woo
181
Fourth Level Standard: (12-17 points)
1. Topic: The topic of the composition is appropriate
2. Ideas: Attempts to group related ideas.
3. Content: Few sensory details and/or feelings tell the reader about the event.
4. Organisation: Shows an attempt to sequence. Obvious transitions. Have one to two
paragraphs.
5. Sentence fluency: Good control over simple sentences. Some variety in sentence structure,
length, and beginning.
6. Punctuation and spelling: Certain number of characters, punctuation, capitalisation and
grammar are incorrectly used, one or more of incorrectly spelled characters not easily
decipherable.
Fifth Level Standard: (0-11 points)
1. Topic: The topic of the composition is inappropriate
2. Ideas: Lacks a central idea or purpose.
3. Content: Text is difficult to understand.
4. Organisation: Random sentences. Writing unclear with redundant/obvious transitions
5. Sentence fluency: Writing is difficult to follow or read.
6. Punctuation and spelling: High frequency characters may be spelled incorrectly, one or more
of incorrectly spelled characters not easily decipherable. Less than 300 characters.
Authors: Miss Li Xuanxi, PhD Candidate
HOC 109, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong
Email: [email protected]
Dr Samuel K. W. Chu, Associate Professor
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong
Email: [email protected]
Dr Wing Wah Ki, Associate Professor
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong
Email: [email protected]
Matsuko Mukumoto Woo, EdD Candidate
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong
Email: [email protected]
Please cite as: Li, X., Chu, K. W., Ki, W. W. & Woo, M. M. (2012). Using a wiki-based
collaborative process writing pedagogy to facilitate collaborative writing among
Chinese primary school students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1),
159-181. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/li.html